Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 01/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-15, 17, and 19 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Orlando.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 14-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett (US 9,321,388 B2) in view of Orlando (US 2004/0036255 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Barnett teaches a dolly and motorcycle assembly comprising,
a dolly (adjustable motorcycle trailer assembly 100) including a dolly chassis (outer frame 104 assembly) having a front end configured to couple to a tow vehicle and a rear end spaced apart from the front end (Figures 1-7),
a plurality of dolly wheels (two back wheels 117) supporting the dolly chassis, the plurality of dolly wheels cooperating to define a dolly wheel axis of rotation about which the plurality of dolly wheels rotate (Figures 1-7),
a platform (inner frame 102 assembly),
and a motorcycle supported by the platform and including a motorcycle chassis and a plurality of motorcycle wheels supporting the motorcycle chassis (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 17, Barnett teaches that the dolly further includes a wheel chock supported by the platform (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, Barnett teaches that the assembly of claim 14, further comprising at least one motorcycle tie down (tie down support members 131) and a plurality of vehicle tie downs (tie down support members 131), the at least one motorcycle tie down including a rearward tie down securing a rearward wheel of the motorcycle to the dolly (Col. 7, Lines 49-53), the motorcycle includes a motorcycle suspension (Figure 6) supporting the motorcycle chassis relative to the plurality of motorcycle wheels, and the at least one motorcycle tie down compresses the motorcycle suspension, and the platform offsets the compression of the motorcycle suspension (Implicit).
However, Barnett does not teach that the dolly includes a platform suspension supporting the platform and supported by the dolly chassis, the platform supportable by the suspension between a raised position to a lowered position relative to the dolly chassis.
Orlando teaches that a dolly includes a platform suspension (cargo platform springs 30) supporting the platform (cargo platform frame 32) and supported by the dolly chassis (tow dolly frame 24), the platform suspension cushioning the motorcycle during transport of the motorcycle (as a sample cargo, see Figure 1), the platform supportable by the suspension between a raised position (unloaded) to a lowered position (loaded) relative to the dolly chassis with the platform suspension biasing the platform toward the raised position (by spring force, Figures 3-4), wherein the platform includes a front end and a rear end and the platform suspension includes a front spring supporting the front end of the platform on the chassis and a rear spring supporting the rear end of the platform (Figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Barnett’s assembly, in view of Orlando, with a platform suspension, in order to cushion the cargo during transportation (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Barnett in view of Orlando teaches all the limitations as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach all limitations of the following claims, particularly as follows:
Claim 1 recites that the dolly, vehicle, and motorcycle assembly having a first state with the vehicle being supported by the dolly with the forward vehicle wheel axis of rotation being positioned forward of the dolly wheel axis of rotation, the forward plurality of wheels being stationary relative to the dolly chassis, the rearward plurality of wheels being supported by the ground, the rearward plurality of wheels rotating relative to the chassis.
Claim 9 recites that the rearward plurality of wheels being supported by the ground.
Claim 16 recites that the pair of towed vehicle wheel support surfaces are spaced apart by a first distance, the platform has a length sufficient to support the plurality of motorcycle wheels and a portion positioned between the pair of towed vehicle support surfaces, the portion has a maximum width perpendicular to the length, the maximum width of the portion is less than the first distance.
For illustration purposes, Fig 2-3 of the examined disclosure shows the dolly, which is different than the dolly taught by the prior art of record (Fig. 1 of Tottef and Fig. 3 of Barnett, etc.)
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VALENTIN NEACSU can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611